Back when the series was first announced in September, Tsujihara was relatively tight-lipped about the project, only saying “The hope is that we’re going to build a film franchise.”

Tsujihara persuaded Rowling to revive the Harry Potter movie magic by adapting her Hogwarts textbook “Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them” for the big screen. Rowling wrote the 54-page book in 2001 between publication of the fourth and fifth Potter books.

“When I say he made ‘Fantastic Beasts’ happen, it isn’t P.R.-speak but the literal truth,” she said about Tsujihara. “We had one dinner, a follow-up telephone call and then I got out the rough draft that I’d thought was going to be an interesting bit of memorabilia for my kids and started rewriting!”

Set initially in New York about seven decades before the start of the Harry Potter story, the films will follow magizoologist Newt Scamander. They’re not prequels or sequels, but an “extension of the wizarding world.”

Considering that this is an original story, I wouldn’t call this a Hobbit trilogy retread. Yes, it’s based on one book and will be three movies, but unlike “The Hobbit,” the actual author of the book is a writer on the project. Furthermore, “Fantastic Beasts” isn’t a novel, so the films will show how the writer of the fictional textbook researched.

All you people complaining about it being “only a 54-page book,” please, before you post, first understand that the movies are NOT going to be based on the content of the book per se. The narrative will deal with the life and explorations of Newt Scamander, the book’s author. That is a whole different kettle of critters!

I don’t understand…. this was a 54 page book that was an already abridged version of a textbook mentioned in a class Harry took. There’s no story, no characters aside from the encyclopedia of beasts themselves, and not even enough of the other world to go off of to incorporate most of them… are we doing a “cats” thing where we just have random scene after random scene where an editor gets to have fun with CGI for no reason? I love Harry Potter with all my heart, and it seems like someone is out to ruin his good name to make an extra and unnecessary buck or two. Shame on you, JKR, shame on you.

This is fantastic news. I’m 50 and a massive Harry Potter fan, having initially got the books for my daughter. She is 25 now and could tell you anything you wanted to know about the books, films and of course J K too. I can’t wait.

If they are going to use JK Rowling in the screenplays then it should be good. Just because the three movies aren’t being based on three full sized novels doesn’t mean they will bad. If Rowling is working on the screenplays or has final approval then I have faith that the movies will at the very least be enjoyable.

The 50-page book is purportedly the end product of decades of research by a magizoologist who travels all over the world stalking magical creatures. Why wouldn’t that concept support three movies, or even a long-running TV show? Sort of like ‘Wild Kingdom,’ only with mythical beasties instead of real-life ones. What better way to utilize the imaginative tools put into filmmakers’ hands by the latest developments in CGI technology? It certainly works for me.

I love how most of the comments are calling Rowling names for ‘milking’ her series, yet are blatantly ignoring the fact that it was not her idea.
She didn’t go around the WB offices asking for ways to make more money, they came to her because they wanted this. So, if you have to call anyone a cash whore, it should be the WB.

Of course, we can’t forget all the people complaining about a 54-page booklet getting turned into a movie. Two things: First, that isn’t the case, so the complaints are moot anyway. Second, even if they were true, if they can turn a book of the bible into a sixteen book drama series, they can do that. (Yes, I was talking about the Left Behind series.)

My problem here is as followed:
As a HUGE fan of the fantasy genre, I have read several books and thought: “that would make a good movie.”. Never once have I read a single novel, stand alone or part of a series and thought: “Man! You could get three good movies out of that.”.
Case in point: Peter Jackson trying to take The Hobbit, which has I think around 330 pages, barely long enough to be called a novel, and making THREE movies out of it. It worked (just like this new Rowlings venture would) because of it’s almost cult like following. But it is the very embodiment of greed, and should be almost a crime.
And she plans to take a 54 page snippet and make THREE movies out of it? Come on…
I mean for real…
Be content with your billions Ms. Rowlings. You wrote an excellent series, which made for above average movie adaptations, and became the riches woman on the planet. I tip my hat to you.

“Fantastic Beasts” wasn’t a novel or even a short story – it was a 54 page fictional encyclopedia about the creatures of the Wizarding World in the Harry Potter universe. It’s not about milking some kind of story out of it – there’s no story to begin with. It’s about using the content to create new stories.

If you see Harry Potter as a metaseries like the Star Wars/Star Trek franchises and not just seven standalone books and their movie adaptations, it makes more sense. Harry Potter focused on one person in one setting a theoretical worldwide culture – there’s an infinite amount of stories with different settings and different people. Sure, these movies are created to make money… but, well, so are most movies. It doesn’t mean these stories aren’t worth telling or seeing.

you’re kind of totally missing the point here. She’s not turning the 54 page book into a movie, she’s telling the story behind the writing of it, which sounds like an interesting. And she’s not milking the franchise, she’s just giving the opportunity to see more parts of a WHOLE WORLD which she created, which we only really caught a glimpse of in the HP series. AND since this story isn’t based off a book, they are perfectly at liberty to make three movies with out it being ridiculous (like the Hobbit is).

The only “above average” movie adaptations were the first two, which were as close to reading the books as possible. The other 6 were on the level of badly written fanfiction one can only tolerate due to the preexisting cult following. But that’s movies for you, they’ll take anything delightfully cute and endearing about the original and make sure to kill it for all subsequent iterations to make room for more uneccessary bells, whistles, bangs, and explosions. This is just bad from its inception.

Depending on their definition of “seven decades before the start of the Harry Potter story” Dumbledore would actually be 30-40 in the time period this is supposed to be set in so I wouldn’t be surprised if she had him make a cameo. Disappointed, but not surprised.

The modicum of respect I gained for Rowling in coming to and admitting the truth about the fundamental incompatibility and unsuitability of the Ron/Hermione relationship has successfully been squandered by backtracking and hedging on the same, and now by this. She’s was mediocre writer who regurgitated some of the classic storytelling tropes and got lucky that people paid enough attention to get caught up in the weird wizarding world and doubly lucky that they didn’t pay enough attention to how inconsistent and nonsensical that world was. Now she’s gone full blown media whore.

and who EXACTLY did she steal ideas from before? The ‘Potter’ series was actually very original. Any lover of fantasy fiction can tell you that some of the same basic ideas are recycled all the time throughout the genre. There are even several fantasy authors that share their characters and worlds with other authors. Not the case with Rowling. The ‘Potter’ books were more original than most fantasy that I’ve read. There ARE a lot of mythological creatures in the series that are found elsewhere, obviously…but at least she used mostly those that are lesser known, as well as creating a few of her own. She also put her own spin on a lot of other elements…like the elves…the ghosts…even the way that magic is used in general. Obviously…you aren’t very familiar with her work, OR the genre in general. Now if you want to go accusing an author of “blatantly stealing idea’s”…go find an ‘Eragon’ forum. It’s ‘Star Wars’ on dragons. Period. Christopher Paolini was like 13 when he started writing the books, tho…so I don’t look TOO harshly on his “borrowed” ideas. He achieved something impressive…tho he DID have help, given his parents own a publishing company, and along with his grandmother, helped him write the books. They were certainly popular, tho. The movie was a disaster, and pretty much killed the franchise…but whatever…now I’m just rambling. The fact is…J.K. Rowling’s work is much more original than MOST literary works in the genre…and I’m certain this new film franchise will be as well.

Mr. Norrell–Star Wars is also every hero quest/bildungsroman ever written, just set in space and using space ships instead of horses and light sabers instead of swords. Good fiction isn’t good because it’s completely new–it’s good because it’s able to successfully play with one of the archetypal narratives.

this is a bit ridiculous now. I love JK Rowling, and I’ve read everything that she’s ever written a gazillion times, but a trilogy based on a silly textbook that barely even features in the books?? It definitely seems like they are milking this a bit too much….

She’s not milking it. She’s making use of this amazing universe that she has created. Don’t tell me you don’t enjoy the expanded universes of Star Wars and Star Trek!? It’s basically the same principle. An expanded universe is much different than stretching out a short story to three novels.

But the expanded star wars and star trek universe movies and series came from volumes upon volumes of already written NOVELS. Dozens of them. Rowling wrote a 54 page snippet and wants to cash in on it via a THREE PART SERIES. That’s just greedy.

@Michael McConnell: And where did the novels come from? And the games? And the comics? Both of those franchises spawned HUNDREDS of original stories across several forms of media based on the universe created in three movies and one tv series. I feel like you’re purposefully not understanding logical comparisons here because you don’t like the Harry Potter series. This is nothing different than what other critically successful franchises have done.

@Mr Norrell: Homie, we get it, you don’t like Harry Potter. Now you’re just being a contrary asshole about it. Not liking something doesn’t make you cool, slick. The internet isn’t high school.